The scientific method is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew "belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all, curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit.
Curiously, for the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes this capacity to disappear by adolescence. Without it, we have no instinctive ability to assess the importance of the technical issues that impinge on our everyday lives. We are unable to gauge accurately the validity of fears over such issues as climate change and the looming energy crisis, or grasp the socio-economic and humanitarian importance of new genetic technologies.
Scientific education is by far the best training for all walks of life, because it teaches us how to assess situations critically and react accordingly. It gives us an understanding based on reverence for life-enhancing technologies as well as for life itself. If we do not know how things work, how can we fix things? And how are we going to use these powerful technologies wisely?
I've always argued that more than the material itself, the ability to analytically think things through, and to analyze the validity of a result/conclusion, are more important, especially for people who are not going to be scientists and engineers. Such skill is severely lacking in many people, because they seldom look behind the statements being made, often by politicians and talking heads on TV.
Zz.
18 comments:
Wow! Great essay. I haven't read much better!
One problem that Harry Kroto did not address was why the 'hard' sciences were not more popular with British students. I fully agree that we all need to be able to assess situations critically, react accordingly and know how to use powerful technologies wisely. Unfortunately science is often seen by many not as the solution to the world's problems but rather their cause.
The reason “the numbers of young people opting for scientific training has dwindled frighteningly all over the developed world” might have something to do with the fact that today’s scientific community systematically crushes originality. Today’s students would be fools to spend six years in school only to confront a Chinese wall of know-it-alls who summarily declare any non-mainstream thinker a crackpot. Rational thought is much better learned in a business class, for in the corporate world professionalism is a requirement and original thought is rewarded.
I disagree with the above statement. You obviously have not read one of my entry on "Imagination without knowledge is Ignorance waiting to happen".
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/10/imagination-without-knowledge-is_18.html
We teach students all the basic knowledge because they need to know what is KNOWN already so that they can identify when something new comes up. The FACT that our knowledge border continues to expand is one clear evidence that falsify what you just claimed.
I also believe that you have no clue on the new stuff we find in physics from your statement about "rational thought" and "original thought". What, you think fractional quantum hall effect and left-handed material weren't original at all? Puhleeze!
Zz.
From “Imagination without knowledge”: “some physicists will always try to shoot them down and show why they will not work”. That doesn’t happen. Non-mainstream ideas are stifled *before* they are shown why they will not work. It isn’t just the crackpots who have noticed this. Physicists like Brian Greene also think that Einstein wouldn’t stand a chance today. The content of his papers wouldn’t matter, because nobody would read them. They’d hit the trash before anyone got beyond the abstract.
I had a friend who almost got his Master’s in physics when he realized that he’d be working with blowhards in backbiting academia, publishing and perishing incremental papers only, any significant new ideas to be squashed or no tenure for him. (Sure, there’re always a few exceptions that make it through the gauntlet of gatekeepers, but that’s like winning the lottery.) So he became a software developer instead.
I saw a story about a graduate physics student who showed his prof an original idea. The prof reviewed it and came back with: “It’s brilliant, I see no flaws, now put in your 20 years and you might have a chance of publishing it”. In the corporate world, an attitude like that wouldn’t survive. But it’s rampant in academia from what I and others can see. Science classes are okay, but a science degree would be a waste for kids today.
No, what is the exception is what YOU are describing. You cited one anecdotal example and think it is the norm. I've cited to you just one of MANY advancement in our knowledge, and I can cite more, as EVIDENCE that contradict what you just said.
Brian Greene himself, ironically, works in an area that requires a boatload of creative and far-out ideas that still have yet to be verified empirically, yet he's in the mainstream of physics and gets published regularly! So the person you are quoting is EXACTLY the counter example that I would use.
Somehow, you are either ignorant, or ignoring these evidence. Pick up ANY Phys. Rev. Lett. issue, and I challenge you to show me that what are published in there are not creativity and imagination at its best. For each example you gave, I can give you 10 to counter your argument.
The fact that you have zero appreciation on how physics has directly contributed to how you live today says plenty about your knowledge of how it works and how it is done. Unlike you, I don't have to go look for 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge to draw up any conclusion. I see it first hand. Now who do you think here has a more direct and accurate data?
Zz.
The “boatload of creative and far-out ideas” are all *mainstream* ideas; they are sanctioned. Unless you’re Hawking, you don’t get full freedom to choose what you research. Other people give you a menu of choices, and you’re restricted to those. String theory is on the menu. Challenging widely accepted theories, or establishing a new field, is not on the menu. That’s what Greene is talking about when he says that an Einstein would have a lot harder time being heard today. There is no viable avenue for an Einstein today to be heard. Rather than be heard, much less any flaw shown with his or her work, an Einstein today would be instantly labeled a crackpot by most any professional physicist. That is a symptom of a larger problem in the scientific community that should warn students to avoid a scientific career like the plague.
Einstein had to go to school to be able to learn and understand why the non-covariant of Maxwell equation was a problem. This was the impetus for him to come up with SR. Yet, according to you, such schooling simply stunt creativity. The same could be said about Planck and his attempt to describe the blackbody radiation that is the beginning of quantum mechanics. You can't be "creative" unless you know what are already known and what are not.
It is ridiculous to think that phenomena such as the fractional charge/fractional quantum hall effect is "mainstream". How can it be when it is not even predicted within the existing theory. Only after it was discovered that we had to reformulate what we know to account for it. The same can be said about many current phenomena that are yet to be understood. So this characterization of what is "mainstream" and what isn't is highly puzzling. Furthermore, since WHEN do you worship every single thing that Brian Greene says? Can you please e-mail to him everything that you just posted here and see if he agrees with you? If he doesn't, will you back down? I've attended a couple of his talks, and I can assure you that your interpretation of what he INTENDED is nowhere near being accurate!
I also notice that you never attempted to address my criticism of the accuracy of your "data". This indicates to me that you are using at best, anecdotal evidence and 2nd, 3rd, hand information to draw up your "conclusion". For most rational people, they tend to realize that this is not the best source of information, and certainly not something one would want to use lest one embarrass oneself with faulty evidence. I have direct, first hand evidence that contradict what you claim. The biggest evidence being the continuing expansion of the boundary of our knowledge.
String theory, LQG, etc are mainstream? Now that's funny!
Zz.
By “mainstream idea” I mean that one that is in a field of research that is widely accepted as one that can be worked on. A mainstream idea can be published. Non-mainstream ideas will not even be considered for publication. If Einstein’s special relativity had not been invented until today, we’d never know about it, for it could not be published today or even considered. No editor or reviewer would read beyond the abstract. Einstein was a maverick and he would pay the price for that today, despite his education. This info does not come just from hearsay or Greene; it is also confirmable by repeatable experiment. For example, ask the editors at Annalen der Physik, which originally published special relativity, if they consider any paper that challenges Einstein. They do not, nor does any other “respected” journal. Physics is closed to new ideas, except those that are sanctioned. Einstein would no doubt be appalled. Students should shun a scientific career until a more enlightened age.
This whole discussion is moot, because you continue to be unable (or unwilling) to defend the validity of your "data" that you use to arrive at such a conclusion.
Furthermore, you are hypocritical. If you truly believe what you said, then you should also shun all the modern electronics that you are using right now. Unless you have the ability to post all this using pure telepathy, then you are using the very same thing you are telling all of these people to shun. Where do you think all your conveniences came from? Out of thin air?
Put your money where you mouth is and stop using every single advances that came out of "mainstream" physics.
And it is ironic that while you espouse people to do some original thought, none of what you are arguing is original. Such arguments that have been used by crackpots are being recycled here. Why you decide to air these things out here is beyond me.
Out of all this, there is still the missing evidence that "crackpots" have been able to make any significant contribution to the body of knowledge of physics within the past 100 years. And before you claim that Einstein is a crackpot, compare to his knowledge of physics and how he got it versus the present-day crackpots that can't work through classical E&M even if their lives depend on it.
You 2nd and 3rd hand data is faulty. Your ignorance of first-hand knowledge of the workings of physics led you to inaccurate view. Still, at least you are exercising your ignorance on something harmless such as responding to blogs, rather than channeling it to where it can really do a lot more harm.
Zz.
You’re coming awfully close to demonstrating what I said above: “an Einstein today would be instantly labeled a crackpot by most any professional physicist”. Why are you so hung up on crackpots? My point here was that a real Einstein could not be heard today, regardless of the validity of their ideas, because only sanctioned avenues of research can be explored. That’s a symptom of a major problem in the scientific community, and a reason why students should stay the hell away. Re the notion that I should avoid modern electronics, that’s a false analogy. So if I think the Iraq war is for stealing oil, I should stop driving a car? Re the validity of my claims, you can check with any major journal in just a few minutes.
And you, on the other hand, not only have "awfully come close", but have gone way beyond demonstrating MY POINT of faulty, ignorant knowledge of the workings of physics. If what you claim is true, there's no explanation for the Teleyarkhan's paper in Science, and how someone like Puthoff could have published all of his papers. None of these are "conventional" nor mainstream physics. The discovery and publication of high-Tc superconductors was another clear example of that, especially when the field at that time was unanimous in the fact that the knowledge of superconductivity is completely known.
All of these were never once addressed by you, even when I asked you to pick up PRL and other journals to point to me how many of those publications are doing something completely new.
But then again, to be able to KNOW something is new, one has to know what is known and what is not known, something that I tend to think you can't tell.
I'm not hung up on "crackpots". It is you who is hung up on being hypocritical. I see that you are still using the advancement we physicists have made even when you continue to diss the way we work. How do you continue with such delusion?
Zz.
If what I claim is true, there is an explanation for Teleyarkhan's paper, along with the other works you mentioned: those works were authorized and so could be considered for publication. Whereas a paper that challenges Einstein, for example, is not authorized, and so cannot be considered for publication. Anyone can check with Annalen der Physik and other journals to verify my claim. I can’t stop you from ignoring a repeatable experiment (or making false analogies), but students should verify my claim before committing to a scientific career where their ideas could well be censored.
You have clearly and unambiguously PROVEN my claim that you are utterly ignorant of what you are criticizing. WHAT AUTHORIZATION are you talking about with regards to Teleyarkhan's Science paper on the bubble fusion? Oak Ridge never gave its authorization, and in fact, urged Science to stop publishing it. So what authorization are you imagining here?
In all of this, you never once tried to address the most damaging accusation that I threw at you - that you are basing your conclusion on faulty hearsay, anecdotal evidence, and 2nd/3rd hand account. Your DATA are suspect, and unless there's something you can argue against that, everything else that FOLLOWS from such DATA are moot and faulty as well. This is something you are unable to defend nor counter, and frankly, it reveals a great deal on why you post such a thing in the first place.
Still using your modern electronics, I see. Typical!
Zz.
The authorization is that which allows the work to be considered. Authorization = permission. Annalen der Physik does not give permission for papers that challenge Einstein to be considered. My knowledge is firsthand, straight from the journal editors. I queried all of the major journals of gravitational physics (I just asked a question, I did not submit anything). Not one will consider a paper that challenges Einstein; the reasoning ranges from unscientific roadblocks at a minimum (e.g. must have “expected” math), all the way to blanket policy in the case of Annalen der Physik. When I told you how to verify my claim, I was telling you how you can get the same firsthand info that I have.
You have a very twisted sense of how peer-review process works. You are using the word of some journal editors (who, more often than not, and especially for Phys. Rev. journals) tend to have to depend most of their decision on the referees rather than make their own decision.
Furthermore, when you challenge existing theories that have been well-verified, the impetus is on YOU to show that it is valid, not the other way. I don't know what delusional world you live in, but EVERYONE in science has to work to convince everyone else of the validity of their work. You, on the other hand, expect even CRACKPOTS to be given the same consideration. The e-print ArXiv had tried this, and it did not work, and it is not even loosely peer-reviewed!
Again, my accusation of the validity of your "data" stands, and it is made more convincing each time you tried to explain yourself. You based your conclusion based on one single practice of "asking" to the editors of various journals, rather than actually attempted it yourself. I do NOT buy this argument that any theory that contradicts Einstein's gravitational idea will automatically not be published. This is BOGUS. There are TONS of papers, especially out of LQG and String, that made predictions of the violation of Lorentz invariance. Even the recent claim about the non-constancy of the fine structure constant that may imply a variation in the speed of light got published. So it is utter rubbish to claim that such challenges are dismissed outright by journal editors.
You have shown not only an utter lack of attention to the nature of your evidence, but your lack of restraint in making broad accusations using such faulty and superficial sources.
I still want to know how you could spew the garbage that you wrote and still reconcile such hypocracy by still using all the things that came out of physics.
Zz.
Why are you so hung up on crackpots? Once again, I’m not talking about crackpots here; I’m talking about a real Einstein. Can you really not distinguish between the two? You really do think that any real Einstein nowadays is a crackpot, don’t you? (That is what I observe about most professional physicists, so you’d not be alone.) Why should anyone submit a paper to a journal whose editor says that the paper will not be considered? That sounds a bit inefficient to me. “The impetus is on YOU to show that it is valid” is moot when the paper will not even get to the reviewers’ desks. LQG and string papers are authorized exceptions. Science is an industry nowadays—that’s the reason for the censorship. Everyone knows that string theory is going nowhere, so it doesn’t risk Einstein’s grant gravy train. Journal editors are faulty sources? Give me a break!
You seem to have an inability to comprehend what I just wrote. I spent a lot of time describing the FACT that Einstein isn't a crackpot, but one HAS to know the intricate details about physics to be able to know what is wrong or inconsistent with the existing theory. Or do you have a problem with short term memory?
And I am not hung up on crackpots. I have mentioned this already! I am, however, hung up on your questionable data. It has everything to do with your delusion that you THINK you can make generalized statement about the practice of physics simply from ASKING journal editors about one particular aspect. You seem to have no qualms at all making blatant accusation about a field of study that you only have superficial knowledge about. All you care about is that you asked some journal editors about ONE particular issue, and BAM, you think you have an accurate picture of the whole field of physics. You find nothing wrong with such a methodology?
Furthermore, I have falsified your claim that ANY paper attempting to dispute Einstein's theory will not be accepted by any journal. Of course, you think such a thing is an "approve" field, whatever that is. I suppose when you can't counter anything, you make things up according to whatever strange criteria that you can dream up. I'm surprised you didn't require something to be "non-approved" when the moon is full.
You still haven't told me how you reconcile your distastes towards the sciences, and yet you STILL use all the progress made by them. Heaven forbid you or your family might need some medical procedure soon. What will you do? I hear there's a very good witch doctor still practicing somewhere in Africa. Would you like a recommendation?
Zz.
Post a Comment